Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Why Are Catholics Still Voting For Democrats? - Part 2

I came across the following pastoral letter from Bishop Thomas John Paprocki. Bishop Paprocki serves in my home state of Illinois (in the Springfield diocese -- the same city that was famously the home of Lincoln before he became President). I couldn't resist sharing it with our readers as it speaks directly to my previous post on the subject of Catholics and voting for Democrats; and even though the Bishop tries hard not to be partisan, as Paprocki says, it is obvious which political party directly supports intrinsic evil and which one does not and therefore it is obvious how a Catholic should vote, assuming the choice is one between a conventional Democrat and a conservative Republican (if they are going to bother to vote in the first place).

Any questions?

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

Much attention was given at the Democratic National Convention held recently in Charlotte, N.C., to the fact that all references to God had been purged from the draft version of the party platform. After outcries of protest from outside as well as within the Democratic Party, the sentence with the same reference to God used in 2008 was restored to read, "We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential."

Before anyone relaxes and concludes that all is well now that the Democratic Party Platform contains a single passing reference to God, the way that this was done should give us pause. Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa had to call for the voice vote three times because each time the sound level for the "ayes" and the "nays" sounded about even, far short of the two-thirds necessary according to convention rules to amend the platform. That did not stop the convention chairman from declaring, "The ayes have it!"

What is troubling about that is the blatant disregard for the rules and for the apparent wishes of about half the delegates. The reference to God is back in the platform apparently because President Obama wanted it back in. That may be fine for now, but if a future president wants references to God taken out, apparently that can be done regardless of the wishes of the delegates if that is what The Leader wants. That does not bode well for democracy in the Democratic Party.

Even more troubling is that this whole discussion about God in the platform is a distraction from more disturbing matters that have been included in the platform. In 1992 Presidential candidate Bill Clinton famously said that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." That was the party's official position until 2008. Apparently "rare" is so last century that it had to be dropped, because now the Democratic Party Platform says that abortion should be "safe and legal." Moreover the Democratic Party Platform supports the right to abortion "regardless of the ability to pay." Well, there are only three ways for that to happen: either taxpayers will be required to fund abortion, or insurance companies will be required to pay for them (as they are now required to pay for contraception), or hospitals will be forced to perform them for free.

Moreover, the Democratic Party Platform also supports same-sex marriage, recognizes that "gay rights are human rights," and calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law signed by President Clinton in 1996 that defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

Now, why am I mentioning these matters in the Democratic Party Platform? There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils. My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding "political" and didn't say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins. I know that the Democratic Party's official "unequivocal" support for abortion is deeply troubling to pro-life Democrats.

So what about the Republicans? I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin. The Republican Party Platform does say that courts "should have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases." But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (in paragraph 2267), "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils.

Certainly there are "pro-choice" Republicans who support abortion rights and "Log Cabin Republicans" who promote same-sex marriage, and they are equally as wrong as their Democratic counterparts. But these positions do not have the official support of their party.

Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.

I pray that God will give you the wisdom and guidance to make the morally right choices.

Comments (44)

This was the question of my youth.
Now, I ask, 'Why are you voting?'
It will not help. Those who pretend to be more in line with Catholic teaching have consistently shown themselves to be either liars, or simply too self-interested to spend the sort of political capital necessary to do something radical enough to change the current situation.
Self-interest may actually work in our favor- if we sit out.
Politicians start to do strange things when they realize their careers are in danger. Some of these strange things might even be stuff we like.

August, in what way will "sitting it out" improve the situation, again? If our sitting it out (on a scale of enough numbers to be noticeable) might potentially, theoretically encourage a fence-sitter waverer on abortion to think more carefully about whose vote he is losing, putting his career in danger, it will ensure the win for a pro-abortion candidate. It will continue to do so as long as the Americans who are voting are, by and large, in favor of abortion at least in "difficult cases". I am having trouble seeing how that leads to our getting candidates who really are pro-life.

Another other prudential consideration is that at the level of presidential office, the top dog can (if he gets 8 years) have a measurable impact making society as a whole worse, more immoral, which makes it that much more difficult to foresee getting moral candidates in the future. Obama, if he can get 4 more years, will get gay so-called "marriage" firmly entrenched in the national patterns, and get government-mandated contraception services entrenched, so that it will be difficult to find candidates who are even willing to talk about unwinding those evils, they will seem so dauntingly firm.

(in paragraph 2267), ". . . the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

Point taken for the use given, but I cringe every time I see this sort of expression as so troubling. Justice as prevention for the community, and necessity in terms of the individual. Where does one begin?

Why Are Catholics Still Voting For Democrats? Because, for most persons affiliated with the Roman denomination, as with most persons of Jewish extraction or most persons still affiliated with "mainline" Protestant denominations, their *real* religion is "liberalism".

I know this is OT, but since I share your "cringe", I just thought you'd enjoy Ed Feser's take on this subject (he was a former blogger here) as he makes a very persuasive case that the Catholic tradition is more complicated that this paragraph from the Catechism suggests:

Well, the Dem platform is certainly more forthright about its intrinsic evils. The GOP platform may be more vague, but its Foreign Policy section gives me more concern than the capital punishment cited by the good Bishop. It would have been interesting if he had addressed that as well.

Our country and its way of life have enemies both abroad and within our shores. We affirm the need for our military to protect the nation by finding and capturing our enemies and the necessity for the President to have the tools to deal with these threats.

Again, nothing nearly as specific as the Dems, but there is enough room in there to cause quite a bit of mischief.

Jeffery S. makes an admirably restrained understatement when he says that Catholic tradition is much more, ahem, complicated than the latest CCC suggests. Another way to put it is that it advances a noticeably different view of the moral viability of CP, on the basis of 1) observably ludicrous empirical claims, and 2) an apparent obliviousness to the moral and social implications of a modern state capable of exercising the sort of power necessary to "effectively preventing crime" and to rendering a man truly "incapable of doing harm."

Again, nothing nearly as specific as the Dems, but there is enough room in there to cause quite a bit of mischief.

The only statements without mischief are hopelessly vague. I find it amusing how people are treating Romney the same way they treated Reagan on this point. Reagan was painted as a warmonger for his hawkish views. You'd think people would at least acknowledge that "peace through strength" is an actual belief, and real people have carried it out in the past. Guess not. Weapons that can only be used defensively for protection the Libs haven't even been comfortable with, which only makes the point that the real issue is what one opposes, not war. The real point is whether or not to oppose evil men at all, not whether to wage aggressive war against them.

"Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but...makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy."

"But I'm not telling you how to vote, really, I'm not."

Jeff, the answer to your (now repeated) question is simple - most of the time, most voters, including most Catholics, aren't single issue voters (guns are the reason for my "most").

They certainly aren't over the so called "life issues". (It would be interesting if the folks here abouts would try to come to terms with the three personhood votes - two in Colorado, one in Mississippi - in what should have been easy areas.)

The Bishop's letter is pure political hackery and will be recognized as such by most. (The vote Republican or go to hell message is touching in that it also reveals the how naive and simple he is - it is well known that heaven is reserved for the Mormons.)

Anyway, the Bishop's letter reminds me of those naive clergy in the 1920s and 30s who were seduced into Popular Front groups by the Communist Party's position on race, etc.
As long as the real church - its members - ignores these meddlesome clerics, the Republic will be safe.

"To my recollection, the single real "war" Reagan got us into was Grenada."

I'm sure El Salvador was real to the folks living there (to be sure Carter and Bush also have blood on their hands). That being said we were still in the Cold War and the stakes were higher. The Soviets were rational players with a declining economy and Reagan was really interested in dealing with nukes. Neo-cons weren't in the dominant position in the Rep Party that they are now. Reagan also had core beliefs; Romney seems to have none.

"The real point is whether or not to oppose evil men at all, not whether to wage aggressive war against them."

The world is full of evil men; there is no way we can eliminate all of them. The Soviets were an existential threat, Iraq, not so much. We really need to mind our own business and stop with the crusading.

"Peace through strength" is another name for Keynesian stimulus which is how Reagan dealt with the economy - ramp up spending, cut taxes, and run deficits - standard keynesian stuff.

Catholics elected to top jobs include Al Smith and Kennedy - theremay be a lot more I can't recall - were Democrats of course. Are there now or have there ever been any Republican candidates for president who were practising Catholics?

Since the Democratic Party was traditionally associated with the interests of working class Catholics of Irish, Italian, and now Hispanic descent, I guess it probably still gets huge sentimental support.

Catholic or not, how does any one with morals vote for Mitt when he has taken into his foreign staff the Bush era pro-torture and pro-war neocons? Add to that the fundamental dishonesty in almost everything he says. We expect politicians to bend the truth and even lie some times, but not to lie all the time.

Russell, do you actually think that anybody is going to be moved by such sweeping vituperative, or are you just engaged in a private cathartic exercise over there? There's a word for such rhetorical bomb-throwing, which isn't actually designed to advance an argument and can't possibly be expected to convince somebody of anything whatsoever. I believe the word is "trolling."

-Foreign policy is POTUS' biggest area of responsibility. Romney's foreign
policy statements have been neo-con boilerplate at best and stupid at worst. I have no
confidence in his ability to handle his biggest responsibility.

-On domestic issues, his "severely conservative" transformation isn't credible, and
Roberts' back-stab on Obamacare should put an end to the SCOTUS argument.

-By asking people to vote on platforms rather than candidates, the bishop is encouraging
the tribal mentality that herds people into voting for whoever has an R or D after their
name. As long as that's the case, the parties will have no incentive to put better
candidates forward.

(1) A contributor is obviously different from a commenter. We've banned less than five commenters in over five years of What's Wrong with the World. You are not among them.

(2) Despite your persistent misrepresentation of the circumstances of your departure to support this "banned for heresy on HBD" line, the truth is you were fired for egregious breaches of collegiality. I have it all in my email archives. To take one example only, I addressed you twice requesting answers to certain pressing questions related to W4 editorial policy; you declined to respond in any way. I don't know what sort of pattern of editorship you favor, but the one I favor assumes that an Editor may ask respectful questions on editorial policy of his contributors, and expect respectful replies rather than intransigent silence.

Jeff, the answer to your (now repeated) question is simple - most of the time, most voters, including most Catholics, aren't single issue voters (guns are the reason for my "most").

al, few people, Catholics or not, conservatives or liberals, are truly one-issue voters. And your comment simply doesn't answer the question. I am 99% sure that the Bishop himself isn't a single-issue voter either. But all good people are called on to vote according to a hierarchy of values, and most DO vote on some kind of a hierarchy. The question is, what's higher and what's lower in your hierarchy? The bishop is saying that Catholicism requires recognizing certain things higher up than a smidgen of better economic improvement, or even a smidgen of better health care for poor folk.

It would be an interesting situation if what is happening is that half of the "Catholics" out there were saying (in effect) that they disagree with the bishop about whether Catholicism implies putting the culture of life and the principles of natural law above prudential considerations of the best way to manage our way out of economic doldrums. But that's not happening. The millions of "Catholic" voters out there who are voting for pro-choice Dems for senator (etc) instead of pro-life candidates (of whatever party) are saying, pretty much, that THEY DON'T CARE whether Catholicism implies positioning culture of life and principles of natural law higher up. They are not interested. Few, very few pro-Democrat Catholics are prepared to make even a semi-coherent argument for how voting for the typical Democrat fulfills Catholicism better than voting otherwise. They simply don't care how it fits with their Catholicism. This is amply shown up by the fact that 70% of Catholics don't go to mass regularly, and probably 80% of the adults below 45 have used contraceptives on occasion. On these points too, very, very few of them would even ATTEMPT to make a case that their failure to go to mass or their using contraceptives actually satisfies what it means to be Catholic, they simply don't care whether what they are doing is consistent with Catholicism.

In effect, their kind of being Catholic is the same sort of thing as their rooting for the Cubs or the Buccaneers - a matter of taste, social silliness, and something they can put on and take off as it suits them because it doesn't really define their perspective in any essential way. A pretty good share of them wouldn't even know how to go about finding for sure just exactly what the Catholic Church teaches officially about something significant. I wish to heck that someone would point out to the bishops that there are actual negative effects in calling these people "Catholic", and ask the bishops to at least consider whether such people should be invited to leave the club if they don't want to play along.

(It would be interesting if the folks here abouts would try to come to terms with the three personhood votes - two in Colorado, one in Mississippi - in what should have been easy areas.)

I don't know why you think Colorado should be an easy area. It's not a Republican or conservative hotbed. For example, both senators are Dems: Udall gets a liberal rating of 64 and a conservative rating of 5. Bennet gets 52 to 9.

The governor in Colorado is also a liberal Democrat; and Denver is teeming with hippies. Take a drive down South Broadway: every third business is a marijuana shop. The Denver metro area absolutely dominates the state's politics.

It is actually quite easy to come to terms with the personhood votes: though they have been moving in the right direction for decades, the majority of Americans are quite wrong on the abortion issue. Whoop-dee-do. They're also wrong on torture and aggressive war, but somehow this eludes Al attention. As long as, for instance, it's a Democrat waging a ruthless and unapologetic drone war, slaughtering combatants and non-combatant alike with impunity, Al's fine with it. This for the simple reason that he rejects, or cannot rationally supply, a moral ground for his politics. Like John C. Calhoun, he is at base a very self-righteous positivist.

Paul, Tony, if you will recall my original comments on the three votes I pointed out that while Miss. is obvious, one needs to dig a little for Colorado. If one looks at the county data one finds that the measure passed in only one (as I recall) county - a small rural entity - and while it lost 4 -1 in Pitkin (Aspen), it also lost in El Paso (Colorado Springs) although by a smaller margin. This significant as CS is fundy central and while voting against personhood, they also re-elected a wingnut congressman who supported personhood.

What is obvious is that a significant number of persons who tell the pollsters they oppose abortion choke when given the opportunity to directly strike a blow. One can't help but draw the conclusion that much of the opposition to abortion is emotionally based and a mile wide but an inch deep.

What is obvious is that a significant number of persons who tell the pollsters they oppose abortion choke when given the opportunity to directly strike a blow. One can't help but draw the conclusion that much of the opposition to abortion is emotionally based and a mile wide but an inch deep.

Well, nothing you have pointed to shows us why a personhood amendment "should have been" easy among whatever areas, like Col. Springs. Have they polled in the past saying "we are against abortion"?

You may be right that a lot of these people's positions against abortion is very thin. But that would still not be shown by the vote against the personhood amendment. First, because not all people who oppose abortion do so because they think the baby is a person from fertilization, and secondly a certain swath of the public strongly opposes the UNFETTERED abortion regime while they are in favor of abortions available for "difficult cases" like rape and incest. So being against the current abortion regime isn't tantamount to wanting all abortions turned into punishable murder from fertilization onward, and the depth of opposition is sort of irrelevant.

Secondly, there are potentially legitimate reasons for staunch pro-lifers to worry prudentially about the effects of a state constitutional amendment that tries to identify personhood directly. Just for one: It is perhaps bad precedent to try to define the most basic terms in a constitutional framework - some things HAVE TO be so deeply rooted as prior conditions for the sake of law that the law cannot attempt to constrain them (like what the meaning of the word "is" is?) I personally don't think that the worries are very grave, but there could be concerns about whether this is the best way to pursue an end to abortion.

Then, too, there is the incredible malaise created by Roe v. Wade. It is deeply disingenuous for anyone like Al, who no doubt supports the regime of Roe, to talk about passing a personhood definition at the state level as "directly striking a blow" at abortion. How misleading can one get? Were a single abortionist arrested by reason of such an amendment (and, by the way, did the amendment actually contain or authorize enforcement procedures to protect the unborn children, or was it a _pure_ gesture), Al knows perfectly well that a federal court would immediately order his release and that it is highly unlikely, in the event of such a constitutional crisis, that state authorities would defy the federal courts.

There is something almost sickening about taunting pro-lifers with not really being pro-life while at the same time supporting a federal-level block, not subject to legislature vote, on effective legislation to outlaw abortion, whether at the state level or at any level higher. The states _did_ have legislation against abortion. It was invalidated by the courts, with the support of pro-abortion liberals like Al. So don't give us any nonsense about how we could "strike a blow" against abortion if we only cared enough. Like tying a man up, killing his child, and asking him, "Why don't you do anything? You must not really care! A real man would save the baby. Save the baby, why don't you?"

For goodness' sake, Steve, whatever you have against me or anyone else, have some consideration for Jeff, whose thread this is!! He was not even with us at that time, you can't possibly have anything against him, and you are threadjacking his post in a particularly ill-mannered and embarrassing fashion. That can't be right, however you slice it. Just stop.

The bishop is saying that Catholicism requires recognizing certain things higher up than a smidgen of better economic improvement, or even a smidgen of better health care for poor folk.

That is what he is sasying. But for the Dem voting Catholics I have encountered it is not always (or only) abortion v. econimc improvement for the poor, but abortion v. aggressive war policy.

Whether the assessment that the GOP is more aggressive on war is accurate is a separate question. But at least that is the pro-Dem Catholic impression, correct or not. Arguing that abortion trumps economic policy is basically missing the mark. Paul's comment addressing Obama's less than pure war making is a more fruitful approach with these Catholics (imho).

One can't help but draw the conclusion that much of the opposition to abortion is emotionally based and a mile wide but an inch deep.

I would draw a contrary conclusion - not that the opposition is emotionally based, but rather the failure to oppose betrays an emotional weakness. In other words, even though the head knows abortion is wrong, the heart does not have the moral courage to do what is right. If anything, it is the pro-abortion position that is based upon emotion (a furiously blind emotion).

"As long as, for instance, it's a Democrat waging a ruthless and unapologetic drone war, slaughtering combatants and non-combatant alike with impunity, Al's fine with it."

Actually there's quite a discussion on the left innertubes in response to an Atlantic column by Will Wilkerson and a post by Henry over at Crooked Timber. Drad DeLong, Duncan Black, and BL have regular contributions to the meme.

I don'r have a choice in this election between a Bernie Sanders or a Sherrod Brown and some Republican. My choice is between a temperamentally conservative Eisenhower Republican and a man with no discernible values and frank sociopathic tendencies who is beholden to a political coalition that is set on war and torture, is misogynistic and homophobic, and is committed to shredding what is left of the New Deal and Great Society safety net.

This country has yet to shake off its thirty-odd year descent into reaction; I don't expect to live long enough to see the next reversal so do what I can to slow things down and smooth the edges.

Paul, instead of pointing out the speck in my eye, how about dealing with the beam in yours?

"But all good people are called on to vote according to a hierarchy of values, and most DO vote on some kind of a hierarchy. The question is, what's higher and what's lower in your hierarchy?"

All you have done is create a distinction without a difference.

"The bishop is saying that Catholicism requires recognizing certain things higher up than a smidgen of better economic improvement, or even a smidgen of better health care for poor folk."

Written, I believe, by a man with a job and health insurance. I will assert that using the maxim, "when my neighbor loses his job, it's a recession' when i lose my job, it's a depression," as a basis for public policy analysis is problematic.

While we aren't dealing with "smidgens", I would point out that in a multi-trillion dollar economy even a smidgen can mean many thousands of jobs.

What shoud be operative here is that it is a bad idea to reward bad behavior. Congressional Republicans have deliberately sabotaged economic recovery in the hope of gaining electoral advantage.

Tony is, I believe, in the insurance industry so I can only conclude that his "smidgon of better health care for poor folk" comment is deliberate intellectual dishonesty. Access to health care isn't measured in these "smidgens" and he knows it. Shame on you.

He knows full well that prior to the ACA, even folks with solid middle class incomes can find themselves uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions or in medical situations where annual and life time caps are exceeded. In those states with high risk pools the costs are often beyond the reach of many.

Friends of mine have a 20 year old who is out of school and whose work doesn't provide insurance, He recently had a serious medical situation that would have been financially crippling but for the ACA.

If one is truly poor, one is at the mercy of Medicaid funding - the funding that Romney - Ryan wants to devastate. The current depression has caused serious cuts in state budgets. Republicans have opposed federal aid make up the shortfalls.

Tony, how about fleshing out this "smidgen" thing?

The Bishop's hierarchy values the interference of the state in what is essentially a private matter over a party's record on war, torture, and economic justice. It seems to me that Catholics can disagree and still be Catholics.

When I was still just a commenter here myself, I swore off responding to you because frankly Steve Burton is correct -- your comments suggest a person who can only be described as "deeply evil & intellectually dishonest".

I have decided to write one last response to you before ignoring you again for the rest of my life (I hope), unless by some miracle you have something useful to say. Concerning the 'substance' of your two most recent comments: there is nothing private about women killing their unborn babies, nor is there anything private (unfortunately) about homosexual activists and their supporters trying to change the definition of marriage. Both are matters of the common good and both are of obvious moral concern to the Bishops and faithful Catholics. As is the issue of just war, how to care for the poor, and torture. However, with the exception of torture, which has now been outlawed in the U.S. -- the only thing the Republicans are proposing versus the Democrats are prudentially different ways of dealing with matters of statecraft and economic and social welfare policy.

You no doubt, like many Democrats, disagree with Republican solutions to the problems of poverty* (to use one example) -- but for a Catholic that doesn't change the fact that there are laws right now that make it easier (or harder) for women to get abortions and our legislators should be doing everything in their power to prevent these abortions from happening now. This is the great moral fact of life for a Catholic facing electoral choices and must be at the top of their list when making a decision. The rest just doesn't mean as much.

*And we know you aren't a serious commenter when you throw around phrases like "committed to shredding what is left of the New Deal and Great Society safety net" or "the funding that Romney - Ryan wants to devastate". These are silly phrases devoid of any context or proportion and only in the fevered dreams of a committed Communist ideologue would the reforms/cuts being proposed by Romney/Ryan be described as "shredding...the...safety net". This is why I stopped responding to you and if you show up again using such loaded language I will simply ban you from my threads.

c matt,

I think you make a good point, but the problem with such an analysis (abortion vs. aggressive war) is that abortion (and the redefinition of marriage) are happening now and by its very nature, "aggressive war" is always going to be speculative (we really don't know how the future will turn out). I would also argue that historically, strong defense actually leads to less war and only when we project weakness do our enemies seek to take advantage of us. But that is a long and contentious debate about foreign/defense policy, which would take us far afield, so perhaps Paul's strategic is the better one.

Tony is, I believe, in the insurance industry so I can only conclude that his "smidgon of better health care for poor folk" comment is deliberate intellectual dishonesty. Access to health care isn't measured in these "smidgens" and he knows it. Shame on you.

Al, you are wrong. (1) I am not in the insurance industry. I work as an actuary, but my profession is in the "pension industry" more closely than most other things, but that still isn't accurate. You simply don't know what I do.

(2) If you go around throwing accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" around you are going to get thrown out in a hurry. You simply don't know what I hold, and assuming that you know what is in my mind (other than my direct statements) sufficiently for an accusation of dishonesty is a gross violation of decent blog behavior. You are warned.

Written, I believe, by a man with a job and health insurance. I will assert that using the maxim, "when my neighbor loses his job, it's a recession' when i lose my job, it's a depression," as a basis for public policy analysis is problematic.

There are times when I have had health insurance, and times when I have not. I know the difference. There is nothing about my stance about public policy that is based on my particular situation right now, and your insinuation that it is, is just another ad-hominem violation of decency. What if I countered by saying your comments are "written by a man who has no insurance, so his position just stems from his personal problems."

What shoud be operative here is that it is a bad idea to reward bad behavior.

Oh, that's rich, coming from a deep-dyed-purple liberal. Modern liberalism is all about insulating people from the natural consequences of making bad decisions, everything from becoming drug addicts, to making babies they don't want to raise, and a dozen other things.

Access to health care isn't measured in these "smidgens" and he knows it. Shame on you.

Of course liberals usually mean by "access" that something is "provided free by someone else". That's not my definition of access. I could go on about lack of access, but that's foolish here, this column isn't a rehash of the ACA debate, and I won't get it bogged down in that.

The Bishop's hierarchy values the interference of the state in what is essentially a private matter

That's a disgustingly inappropriate way to frame the issue. Is it also dishonest? You know perfectly well that if the Bishop's starting premises are right, it is precisely and exactly NOT a private matter. Marriage is public (in addition to having private aspects as well) - it is what society says about these 2 people and the outward, public consequences of their forming a unit. Gays have been free of problems in the PRIVATE arena since the Lawrence decision, it is the PUBLIC arena that they keep contesting, they want PUBLIC acceptance. Keeping innocent (baby) humans alive and free from attack is a public matter, not a private one. You are trying to insinuate the bishop's conclusions into a framework, wholly foreign to his thought, that is YOURS and contrary to Catholicism, as if that were an adequate basis for Catholics to disagree.

That's three highly inappropriate remarks in one offering. I hope you are not going for a record.

Al, please do refrain from conjectures on matters of personal employment and suchlike. That's bush league stuff and of course we could dig through your IP addys and the rest and expose all kinds of personal stuff but we're not jackasses like you. If I had to ban you, I would miss our lone voice of paleo-leftism, but only for a moment.

As for the substance of your remarks I think it's hilarious that after a pathetically facile dismissal of the drone war point, you resort to exactly the sort of lesser-evil argument that you sneer at when someone else makes it. The Bishop for instance.

Some of us think that while it's very wrong to torture Jihadists, because it's always wrong to torture, it is still more wrong to slaughter innocent life; and that it's impossible to vote justly for a politician who favors abortion. If you are a man of honor, you'll just concede that we disagree on an important principle.

Golly, as I seem to have shaken folks up, I'll certainly apologize for that, no harm intended.

I don't understand the fuss though. My assumption was a reasonable inference from Tony's bio and posts over the years regarding tax law and regulations. You all need to ponder the difference between reasonable (though incorrect it seems) inferences and outing and stalking - with which Paul seems to be threatening moi. Now, being a cooler head and not prone to excitability, I am confident that Paul meant no such thing and likely regrets his momentary intemperance.

Folks have engaged in all sorts of idle speculation as to moi over the years and none of these seem to have caused you all any problems. They certainly haven't bothered me - not even the gleeful anticipation of my demise!

However Tony, you have neatly avoided responding to my most reasonable point. Either you understand what the ACA does or you don't. Based on your earlier comments, I assumed you understood the law. However, if you truly believe that what is at stake in this election involves only a "smidgen" of extra medical care directed only at the "poor". well, then once again I will happily apologize for accusing you of intellectual dishonesty.

This, of course, raises some questions. For example, how can it be that this "smidgen" directed only at the poor constitutes a federal take over of an entire industry - something others have assured me that the ACA does? Why all this fuss over a "smidgen"?

Also, what information did you rely upon in coming to the "smidgen" conclusion?

Once again, sorry for any problems. Oh, and I do have health insurance - just paid the quarterly bill.

Oh, that's rich, coming from a deep-dyed-purple liberal. Modern liberalism is all about insulating people from the natural consequences of making bad decisions, everything from becoming drug addicts, to making babies they don't want to raise, and a dozen other things.

This is the freedom that liberals talk about. Liberals believe that if a woman has no access to "safe and legal abortion" that her sexual liberty is denied her by virtue of the fact that a mechanism by which she can escape responsibility for her choices has been denied her. This is why I have cautioned other libertarian-leaning folks that individual freedom as understood by the left and many apolitical people is a matter of consumption and really consumption without responsibility when you get down to it.

The Bishop's hierarchy values the interference of the state in what is essentially a private matter

There are many things which one could easily argue are "private matters" which liberals enthusiastically want the state to outlaw as badly as social conservatives do. In fact, what is telling is that social conservatives tend to at least be somewhat consistent while liberals pick and choose which "private matters" they want the state to enthusiastically prosecute.

Also, what information did you rely upon in coming to the "smidgen" conclusion?

I told you, we are not debating ACA all over again, not here.

My assumption was a reasonable inference from Tony's bio and posts over the years regarding tax law and regulations. You all need to ponder the difference between reasonable (though incorrect it seems) inferences

That "incorrect" is exactly why you need to NOT read into things more than is actually intended. I have intentionally left blank exactly what I do, and have tried to keep it ambiguous. It seems I was successful. Your "reasonable" inference for my industry was no better than possible, with other actuarial arenas also possible - which you did not adequately consider, and thus your conclusion was not actually "reasonable." It was a guess.

But another problem with your post was the "intellectually dishonest" accusation. You don't have sufficient grounds for making such accusations, and even if you thought you did you shouldn't have stated it so in this forum anyway. Your comment was "no harm intended" only if I and others are willing to pass of calling someone "intellectually dishonest" as a mere debate tactic, no more than a rhetorical flourish. Maybe that's a license for our taking ALL of your stupid notions as mere rhetorical flourishes, no substance to them.

Rhetorical devices that include accusations and name-calling, without a LOT better basis than yours, should not be attempted. Generally, you should not attempt them at all.

Tony, I'm asking you to defend your hierarchy, you know, the one you asserted. It seems reasonable to me that in order for one to properly make use of any hierarchy, however ordered, the elements must be accurately represented.

Both Romney and Ryan have proposed changes to health care involving the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid. The latest projections that I've seen would have way more (2.5 X) folks uninsured under Romney's plan. Ryan's various Medicare proposals would end the system as a single payer plan and eventually cost seniors way more for less. Their proposals for Medicaid would lead to drastic cuts to health care for seniors and the poor.

Your hierarchy is based on any changes in health care being very slight and affecting only the poor. There is no way that weighting can be defended. The only matter in question is what you believed/knew at the time you wrote that only the poor would be affected by Republican designs on the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid and those only slightly.

Either you knew what was being proposed and deliberately misstated what you knew to be the case or you truly believed that only trivial changes to our safety net were at stake. If it was the former, shame on you; if the latter then I do apologize. It would be a useful service to your fellow conservatives if you shared the sources you trusted but who seem to have grievously misled you.

"Some of us think that while it's very wrong to torture Jihadists, because it's always wrong to torture, it is still more wrong to slaughter innocent life..."

Which is an interesting way of stating matters as many, if not most, of those who were tortured were innocents who were only guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Anyway, your weighting is what needs to be justified and I have yet to see any justification that makes sense. War, arbitrary detention, and torture are the state acting at a maximum level of activity and power.

Laws and court decisions that make some abortions a matter of individual choice involve a more modest concept of state power.

We also have experience to guide us here. There are limits to what can be done to limit abortions and remain a free society with limits on government power.

You seem to be asserting that the state's interest in preventing abortion trumps any concerns over that state being able to make war and engage in torture as it sees fit. Does the Bishop believe that? Do you really believe that?

Al, just to be clear on this point of order: Your "reasonable inference" about Tony was actually a cheap insinuation designed to impute his motives or good faith. That's the sort of thing that will stop or you will be gone. Clear?

+++

Moving on . . .

We tortured KSM, extensively. That's the hard-case example where right-wingers usually disagree with me. No one favors torturing innocents. I was on record skeptical of the detention policy of the Bush administration in early 2002. I remain skeptical of that of the Obama administration in 2012.

You know as well as I do that Obama is getting a free pass on some very dubious anti-terror policies. He also enjoyed a 10-day favorable cover-up by his lapdogs in the media on the debacle that resulted in a dead ambassador and an extraordinary obsession with a Youtube trailer of minor consequence. Had things events occurred under Bush the media would have come unglued.

Roe v. Wade invalidated 50 separate state laws concerning abortion and established by judicial fiat one of the most left-wing abortion regimes in the world. That you regard this as a "modest concept of state power" is a testament to your pronounced and unthinking statism. By contrast, had John Roberts not caved, leaving the Kennedy-Scalia opinion on the ACA as the majority opinion, we need hardly set loose our imaginative faculties to envision the histrionics you would have engaged in to denounce the decision.

My hierarchy at least has the virtue of simplicity: I'll never vote for a pro-choice candidate. I share the Bishop's view that this issue of innocent life butchered in the womb does very much trump matters of prudence in statecraft and warcraft. If the law permits the murder of the most vulnerable of all human beings, it surely can be manipulated to permit the torture of other human beings of lesser innocence.

Because I respect Tony and Paul too much, I have decided to leave your comment where it is and let us all continue to respond to it. But for the record, in my opinion, it is an example of the kind of comment that makes you not worth the effort.

To wit, you say:

Both Romney and Ryan have proposed changes to health care involving the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid. The latest projections that I've seen would have way more (2.5 X) folks uninsured under Romney's plan. Ryan's various Medicare proposals would end the system as a single payer plan and eventually cost seniors way more for less. Their proposals for Medicaid would lead to drastic cuts to health care for seniors and the poor.

What is deeply, sadly, intellectually dishonest about this paragraph is the partial truth. I'm quite sure there is some liberal policy shop, indeed some respectable middle-of-the-road policy shop that looked at various Romney/Ryan plans and came up with the 2.5 figure, as an initial impact of those Romney/Ryan changes.

But what you fail to say, what makes you so tedious, partisan, intellectually bankrupt and frustrating all at the same time is that there are all sort of additional assumptions you need to make to baldly assert that Ryan's proposals will "eventually cost seniors way more for less" (no evidence of this -- none) or that Romney/Ryan proposals for Medicaid will "lead to drastic cuts to health care for seniors and the poor". Indeed, most conservatives would argue the exact opposite -- without market based reforms like Romney/Ryan are proposing, Medicare and Medicaid will be forced by budgetary realities to "drastically cut services" and in ways that are totally insulated from consumer preferences.

Those additional assumptions ignore all the hard work and effort that various conservative and libertarian policy shops have done over the past 10+ years showing how market forces can do a better job of allocating scarce resources than government bureaucrats when it comes to healthcare decisions (just like other market goods -- imagine that!)

I could send to a hundred different websites, but a good place to start is here:

The point being is that once again, even in a supposedly 'honest' and straightforward response to Tony, you sneak in left-wing assumptions as if they were fact, you ignore the best arguments of your opponents, and you make wildly inaccurate statements of 'fact' that don't stand up to scrutiny. I should note that there are arguments to be made against some of these market-based solutions and that within the conservative/libertarian movement there are certainly vigorous debates as to the best way to reform our health care system. But the way to actually engage this debate is to present the arguments in an honest manner and attempt to wrestle with the real issues at stake.

The latest projections that I've seen would have way more (2.5 X) folks uninsured under Romney's plan.

To date, not one projection has factored into their assumptions the possibility that Catholic employers will stop insuring their employees, thus actually REDUCING the number of people insured under Obamacare. Including the number of poor people insured, given the pitiful wages Catholic schools and churches usually pay people. Nuts to your projections. And to your arguments, as full of holes as they are.

Either you knew what was being proposed and deliberately misstated what you knew to be the case or you truly believed that only trivial changes to our safety net were at stake.

Or three or four OTHER possibilities, which your benighted mind failed to work on.

Anyway, your weighting is what needs to be justified and I have yet to see any justification that makes sense.

I am not a fan of proportionalism (I think that's what it's called), but if weighting is what you want, then it seems 50,000,000+ (or thereabouts) slaughtered by abortion (not even tossing in IVF and ESCR casualties) would "outweigh" the 2,000 (being very generous) tortured.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.

Reverse the order of the digits in 31, then type the answer using letters instead of numbers, all lower case. (required):